Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of international cricket five-wicket hauls by Ian Botham/archive1
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by Dabomb87 02:31, 22 October 2010 [1].
List of international cricket five-wicket hauls by Ian Botham (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Toolbox |
---|
- Nominator(s): Harrias talk 15:25, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because I feel it meets the FLC criteria. It is based upon existing FL List of international cricket five-wicket hauls by Glenn McGrath. Harrias talk 15:25, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 20:52, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
*Pity image is of Beefy batting. Anyway, make it bigger, so I can see the moustache.
The Rambling Man (talk) 17:22, 30 September 2010 (UTC) Thanks for your comments! Harrias talk 19:59, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support The Rambling Man (talk) 22:19, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment—no dab links, no dead external links. Ucucha 21:34, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Courcelles 12:25, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
*Comments
Courcelles 01:32, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support Courcelles 12:25, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Struway2 (talk) 16:32, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
*Quick comments
|
Comment – Three straight sentences in the first paragraph start with "He". A little more variety would be nice. The first use would be a good place to start, since what comes beforehand isn't directly related to Botham.Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:11, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Done, have altered the first and third of that sequence. Harrias talk 22:25, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support – Note that I fixed a grammatical issue that likely related to the fix which was made. Other than that now-addressed item, everything looks good. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 20:11, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Done, have altered the first and third of that sequence. Harrias talk 22:25, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
oppose, the table(s) in this article do not meet the requirements of WP:MOS. If you look at WP:Wikitable you'll see that tables are required to use[reply]! scope="row"| and ! scope="col"|
. MOS has changed a lot since then. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 18:50, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you for the constructive criticism. Oh wait, no, it wasn't that at all.
- I've looked at WP:MOS and I see nothing that says I have to do this. Although I agree that it is covered in Help:Table.
- As far as I can tell, I've now fixed it, do you still oppose? If not, wouldn't a comment, rather than an opposition have made more sense initially?
- Thanks for the civility.Harrias talk 19:36, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- yes I'm sorry it should have been comment and I should have linked you to the MOS page at WP:ACCESS#Data tables. I didnt mean to cause confusion on what is a well written article -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 22:48, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.